按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
what was most surprising； however； was that there were so many body designs that hadfailed to make the cut； so to speak； and left no descendants。 altogether； according to gould； atleast fifteen and perhaps as many as twenty of the burgess animals belonged to no recognizedphylum。 （the number soon grew in some popular accounts to as many as one hundred鈥攆armore than the cambridge scientists ever actually claimed。） 鈥渢he history of life；鈥潯rote gould；鈥渋s a story of massive removal followed by differentiation within a few surviving stocks； notthe conventional tale of steadily increasing excellence； plexity； and diversity。鈥�
evolutionary success； it appeared； was a lottery。
one creature thatdid manage to slip through； a small wormlike being called pikaiagracilens； was found to have a primitive spinal column； making it the earliest known ancestorof all later vertebrates； including us。pikaia were by no means abundant among the burgessfossils； so goodness knows how close they may have e to extinction。 gould； in a famousquotation； leaves no doubt that he sees our lineal success as a fortunate fluke： 鈥渨ind back thetape of life to the early days of the burgess shale； let it play again from an identical startingpoint； and the chance bees vanishingly small that anything like human intelligence wouldgrace the replay。鈥�
gould鈥檚 book was published in 1989 to general critical acclaim and was a great mercialsuccess。 what wasn鈥檛 generally known was that many scientists didn鈥檛 agree with gould鈥檚conclusions at all； and that it was all soon to get very ugly。 in the context of the cambrian；鈥渆xplosion鈥潯ould soon have more to do with modern tempers than ancient physiologicalfacts。
in fact； we now know； plex organisms existed at least a hundred million years beforethe cambrian。 we should have known a whole lot sooner。 nearly forty years after walcottmade his discovery in canada； on the other side of the planet in australia； a young geologistnamed reginald sprigg found something even older and in its way just as remarkable。
in 1946 sprigg was a young assistant government geologist for the state of south australiawhen he was sent to make a survey of abandoned mines in the ediacaran hills of the flindersrange； an expanse of baking outback some three hundred miles north of adelaide。 the ideawas to see if there were any old mines that might be profitably reworked using newertechnologies； so he wasn鈥檛 studying surface rocks at all； still less fossils。 but one day whileeating his lunch； sprigg idly overturned a hunk of sandstone and was surprised鈥攖o put itmildly鈥攖o see that the rock鈥檚 surface was covered in delicate fossils； rather like theimpressions leaves make in mud。 these rocks predated the cambrian explosion。 he waslooking at the dawn of visible life。
sprigg submitted a paper to nature ； but it was turned down。 he read it instead at the nextannual meeting of the australian and new zealand association for the advancement ofscience； but it failed to find favor with the association鈥檚 head； who said the ediacaran imprints were merely 鈥渇ortuitous inorganic markings鈥濃�攑atterns made by wind or rain ortides； but not living beings。 his hopes not yet entirely crushed； sprigg traveled to london andpresented his findings to the 1948 international geological congress； but failed to exciteeither interest or belief。 finally； for want of a better outlet； he published his findings in thetransactions of the royal society of south australia。 then he quit his government job andtook up oil exploration。
nine years later； in 1957； a schoolboy named john mason； while walking throughcharnwood forest in the english midlands； found a rock with a strange fossil in it； similar toa modern sea pen and exactly like some of the specimens sprigg had found and been trying totell everyone about ever since。 the schoolboy turned it in to a paleontologist at the universityof leicester； who identified it at once as precambrian。 young mason got his picture in thepapers and was treated as a precocious hero； he still is in many books。 the specimen wasnamed in his honor chamia masoni。
today some of sprigg鈥檚 original ediacaran specimens； along with many of the other fifteenhundred specimens that have been found throughout the flinders range since that time； canbe seen in a glass case in an upstairs room of the stout and lovely south australian museumin adelaide； but they don鈥檛 attract a great deal of attention。 the delicately etched patterns arerather faint and not terribly arresting to the untrained eye。 they are mostly small and disc…shaped； with occasional； vague trailing ribbons。 fortey has described them as 鈥渟oft…bodiedoddities。鈥�
there is still very little agreement about what these things were or how they lived。 theyhad； as far as can be told； no mouth or anus with which to take in and discharge digestivematerials； and no internal organs with which to process them along the way。 鈥渋n life；鈥潯orteysays； 鈥渕ost of them probably simply lay upon the surface of the sandy sediment； like soft；structureless and inanimate flatfish。鈥潯t their liveliest； they were no more plex thanjellyfish。 all the ediacaran creatures were diploblastic； meaning they were built from twolayers of tissue。 with the exception of jellyfish； all animals today are triploblastic。
some experts think they weren鈥檛 animals at all； but more like plants or fungi。 thedistinctions between plant and animal are not always clear even now。 the modern spongespends its life fixed to a single spot and has no eyes or brain or beating heart； and yet is ananimal。 鈥渨hen we go back to the precambrian the differences between plants and animalswere probably even less clear；鈥潯ays fortey。 鈥渢here isn鈥檛 any rule that says you have to bedemonstrably one or the other。鈥�
nor is it agreed that the ediacaran organisms are in any way ancestral to anything alivetoday （except possibly some jellyfish）。 many authorities see them as a kind of failedexperiment； a stab at plexity that didn鈥檛 take； possibly because the sluggish ediacaranorganisms were devoured or outpeted by the lither and more sophisticated animals of thecambrian period。
鈥渢here is nothing closely similar alive today；鈥潯ortey has written。 鈥渢hey are difficult tointerpret as any kind of ancestors of what was to follow。鈥�
the feeling was that ultimately they weren鈥檛 terribly important to the development of lifeon earth。 many authorities believe that there was a mass extermination at the precambrian鈥揷ambrian boundary and that all the ediacaran creatures （except the uncertain jellyfish） failed to move on to the next phase。 the real business of plex life； in other words； started withthe cambrian explosion。 that鈥檚 how gould saw it in any case。
as for the revisions of the burgess shale fossils； almost at once people began to questionthe interpretations and； in particular； gould鈥檚 interpretation of the interpretations。 鈥渇rom thefirst there were a number of scientists who doubted the account that steve gould hadpresented； however much they admired the manner of its delivery；鈥潯ortey wrote in life。 thatis putting it mildly。
鈥渋f only stephen gould could think as clearly as he writes！鈥潯arked the oxford academicrichard dawkins in the opening line of a review （in the london sunday telegraph） ofwonderful life。 dawkins acknowledged that the book was 鈥渦nputdownable鈥潯nd a 鈥渓iterarytour…de…force；鈥潯ut accused gould of engaging in a 鈥済randiloquent and near…disingenuous鈥�
misrepresentation of the facts by suggesting that the burgess revisions had stunned thepaleontological munity。 鈥渢he view that he is attacking鈥攖hat evolution marchesinexorably toward a pinnacle such as man鈥攈as not been believed for 50 years；鈥潯awkinsfumed。
and yet that was exactly the conclusion to which many general reviewers were drawn。
one； writing in the new york times book review； cheerfully suggested that as a result ofgould鈥檚 book scientists 鈥渉ave been throwing out some preconceptions that they had notexamined for generations。 they are； reluctantly or enthusiastically； accepting the idea thathumans are as much an accident of nature as a product of orderly development。鈥�
but the